What a Woman Ought to Be and to Do

Black Professional Women Workers during the Jim Crow Era

Stephanie J. Shaw

• Publisher: University of Chicago Press
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780226751207, 9780226751191
• eBook ISBN: 9780226751306
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Labour & Industrial Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Stephanie J. Shaw takes us into the inner world of American black professional women during the Jim Crow era. This is a story of struggle and empowerment, of the strength of a group of women who worked against daunting odds to improve the world for themselves and their people. Shaw's remarkable research into the lives of social workers, librarians, nurses, and teachers from the 1870s through the 1950s allows us to hear these women's voices for the first time. The women tell us, in their own words, about their families, their values, their expectations. We learn of the forces and factors that made them exceptional, and of the choices and commitments that made them leaders in their communities.

What a Woman Ought to Be and to Do brings to life a world in which African-American families, communities, and schools worked to encourage the self-confidence, individual initiative, and social responsibility of girls. Shaw shows us how, in a society that denied black women full professional status, these girls embraced and in turn defined an ideal of "socially responsible individualism" that balanced private and public sphere responsibilities. A collective portrait of character shaped in the toughest circumstances, this book is more than a study of the socialization of these women as children and the organization of their work as adults. It is also a study of leadership—of how African American communities gave their daughters the power to succeed in and change a hostile world.

PART ONE

WHAT A WOMAN OUGHT TO BE

CHAPTER ONE

“Aim always to attain excellence
in character and culture”: CHILD-REARING STRATEGIES

As children begin preparing for the societal roles they will hold as adults, family members provide their first lessons on the social and cultural values of the groups of which they are a part.¹ The processes by which parents and others convey those values and traditions are largely self-determined, but the interpretation, the articulation, and the actualization of those expectations are conditioned by many factors, including some that appear to lie beyond the direct control of the individuals involved. That is, fortitude, good character, ambition, and a variety of other personal qualities that parents regularly encourage in their children enable some to achieve more than others. But for African American women who achieved personal and professional success during the Jim Crow era, racism, sexism, and the consequences of economic stratification easily rendered individual means and efforts insufficient in the personal struggle for self-development. For these women self-development sometimes required a collective effort, and the key to their successfully compensating for normally constraining conditions and ultimately overcoming them lay in that communion and in an upbringing in families where the first lessons taught emphasized the importance of working hard and of preparing for, and expecting, success.

This chapter is therefore about the child-rearing strategies undertaken by the families of these women. Parents anticipated the complex range of conditions that could impede their daughters’ futures, and consequently the child-rearing processes reflected some thought about traditional public sphere constraints, private sphere responsibilities, personal attributes, and community expectations. Using a formula that emphasized appropriate behavior, dedicated preparation, hard work, and community consciousness, family elders espoused a work and success ethic that was more than a symbolic recipe for maintaining the status quo. They intended that these daughters escape the traditional occupational traps most black women had to endure, and they expected the daughters to make some difference in the lives of the many people in their communities who did not enjoy the advantages that they did.

With few exceptions—one being Mary Church Terrell, the daughter of a millionaire—African American women have had to work for a living. Therefore some aspects of child rearing were particularly individualistic. Whether or not parents preferred to see their daughters enjoy lives of leisure or at least lives free of wage-earning duties, they understood that the economic circumstances of black Americans made it unrealistic to assume that one’s child, because she was female, would escape those responsibilities. Black women’s incomes were often critical to the family economy.² Parents also knew that without formal education their daughters would have few alternatives to working as domestic or agricultural laborers.³ The economic and sexual exploitation of black women in these occupations was well known to them, so to ensure that that would not be the lot of their daughters, those mothers and fathers who could do so provided their daughters with as much education as possible—sometimes at great sacrifice. Parents deliberately encouraged the pursuit of courses of study that would lead to higher occupations, and they pushed the children to be self-confident, independent high achievers. These parents were neither unrealistic nor irresponsible in rearing their daughters in this way. Nor had they misread society’s cues about the social and economic options available to black women. They simply insisted upon distinguishing between what their daughters were capable of doing and what they might be allowed or expected to do.⁴

Public expectations were, however, very important. Parents understood that if their daughters were to receive the best and the most opportunities available, they would have to be extremely circumspect and never give even the slightest hint of impropriety, otherwise they might be negatively typecast and raise doubts about their abilities and fitness to serve in professional, educational, or other public settings. Administrators who made hiring decisions would not employ a person of questionable character. And equally important, if the women were not morally upright, self-controlled, and community oriented, the black community they were to serve would also reject them on the grounds of being incompetent despite formal training and for being unacceptable role models for the children of the community. The Reverend James Preston Poindexter, the first black member of the Columbus, Ohio, board of education, put it succinctly: “Parents of colored youth, like parents of white youth, demand that those appointed to teach their children shall have the requisite educational qualifications; be pure in their lives, orderly in deportment, devoted to their work, and successful, because capable and devoted.”⁵ Because teachers were important vehicles for children’s advancement, parents from less privileged backgrounds, who had high aspirations for their children too, but fewer means of achieving them, found these qualifications especially important. Thus, to obtain a position and to succeed in the higher service occupations, more than self-confidence and formal education was necessary; one also had to be respectable.

But enhancing employment options was not the only reason to maintain respectability. Parents also emphasized such expectations simply because they wanted their children to be well behaved, and they wanted people to know that their children came from good homes—that they themselves were people of good character. And even here the emphasis on respectable behavior went beyond the general concern most parents had for the family image. Because they lived in an environment in which the exploitation and abuse of black people were commonplace, parents also hoped that extremely upright behavior would ward off dangerous attention and counteract the negative stereotypes of African Americans that were common throughout white America.

Finally, as important as educational preparation and respectability were, character was a critical accompaniment, and it involved more than demonstrating good manners. By working to develop character, child-rearing strategies went beyond individualistic concerns to encompass the needs of the community. A person of character possessed the kind of self-confidence that enabled her to trust her own judgment and not be diverted from personal goals by interests contrary to her own. But character also involved being respectful of others and even committed to them. That commitment was demonstrated in a willingness to address situations not necessarily of one’s making—the demonstration of loyalty, for example. It required understanding that committing oneself to struggle was not a self-centered quest for martyrdom but the “acceptance of vocation.” And perhaps most of all, character depended on being responsible in several ways: demonstrating “loyalty in action,” being accountable to oneself and others for one’s actions, and assessing situations accurately enough to define one’s actions accordingly (otherwise one’s actions could be irresponsible). A responsible woman was capable of viewing negative experiences as only a part of a whole, and she also knew that accepting those negatives represented neither “resignation” nor “running away from struggle” but was simply a matter of recognizing reality. In short, character involved the possession of particular “moral qualities,” the ability to make decisions responsibly, and the acceptance of certain “social roles.” During child rearing, efforts at character development often appeared to be simple instructions on good manners, but the habits parents sought to instill in children could lead to their becoming self-assured, community-conscious, socially responsible adults.⁶

Altogether, then, while recognizing and maneuvering against the vulnerabilities entailed by being black and female, parents designed child-rearing strategies that would help to ensure the personal, academic, and professional success of their daughters. These strategies reflected concern for the equally important aspects of formal schooling, respectable behavior, self-assurance, self-discipline, and social responsibility. Parents believed these traits were the keys to success in both the private and the public spheres. And as a consequence of such upbringing, their daughters were partly prepared not just for work but for professional positions, activism, and leadership roles.

Norma Boyd’s parents, Jurell and Pattie Bullock Boyd, migrated to Washington, D.C., soon after their marriage. They left their North Carolina home around 1880 in part because of the limited educational opportunities available there for the children they planned to have. The Boyds eventually had three daughters, and ultimately each one gained a solid education: Norma, who became a schoolteacher in the District of Columbia, graduated from Armstrong High School and Howard University.⁷ Norma’s education, however, began in her home, long before she started her formal schooling. Her upbringing in this regard was not very different from that of other women included in this book—their parents all expected them to become accomplished public achievers.

Some of the first lessons parents taught were those specifically aimed at generating regular, unselfconscious, respectable behavior. Lessons initially involved simply learning the importance of saying “thank you,” “excuse me,” and “please.” Cleanliness and a neat appearance were important complements to politeness. Gossiping and unnecessary borrowing were unacceptable behaviors. And woe betide one caught eating on the street. If children were ever inclined to defy these little lessons, there were much larger issues than individual choice and personal consequences to consider. For as Norma Boyd’s mother reminded her children—and it was not an uncommon strategy—their manners reflected not only their own character but that of the entire family. Because, Boyd learned, everything she did reflected her home training, she always had to behave in a manner that told people she came from a good home. Mrs. Boyd’s conveying the lesson in this context provided a powerful incentive to learn it and abide by it. That is, Boyd’s choosing to disgrace herself was one thing; disgracing the whole family was not a choice she had a right to make.⁸

Parents taught and reinforced lessons in graciousness, thoughtfulness, and character development in a variety of ways. When, for example, Constance Fisher informed her parents that she might receive an award for her work in the YWCA Conference during the 1920S, Isaac Fisher insisted, “We are proud of all the fine things you have written about the Conference…. But your mama, Auntie, and I want you to know that the thing we are proudest of is that you have grown so much in bigness of spirit, that nominated for one of the greatest honors that can come to a student, you can say that another girl is the one to whom the honor should go. You cannot lose with such a spirit as that.”⁹

Even when Archibald Grimké served as American consul to Santo Domingo from the middle to the late 1890s, he continued to instruct his daughter Angelina through the mails. Archibald regularly reminded Angelina to respond to people who had written letters to her, to thank people for favors that they had provided, and to keep in touch with old family friends. Because Angelina was left in the care of her uncle and aunt, Francis and Charlotte Forten Grimké, Archibald also instructed his daughter to be a comfort to them. In one instance he begged her: “Do my darling learn to be kind and thoughtful and unselfish,” which he described as the most beautiful virtues a person could have. As he worked to make certain that Angelina would not become an undue burden to those who had so generously agreed to care for her in his absence, he also hoped that she, like other “nice girls, white and colored,” would always behave respectably.¹⁰

Parents’ occupations rarely caused the kind of physical separation the Grimké family experienced, but because families often sent children away from home for formal schooling, separation was not uncommon. The physical distance between the student and her family regularly precluded quick parental responses to all but emergency situations; therefore it was important for children to learn to provide for their own needs correctly. They had to learn to eat sensibly in order to prevent ill health. They had to learn to shop economically, thus avoiding unnecessary expenses. And they also had to learn how to dress tastefully and wisely to prevent both physical infirmity and social embarrassment. Parents wanted to encourage self-reliance and maturity in their children, and, therefore, they did not hesitate to remind the daughters of their own obligations in these matters. When Angelina Grimké asked her father for money to buy new clothes, he simply reminded her of how privileged she was to have all she had, and he added, “If you look shabby, it will be your own fault.”¹¹

Angelina Grimké’s efforts to obtain extra money from her father were rarely successful. While attending school in Massachusetts in 1898, she asked him for five dollars for a new winter outfit in addition to the five dollars he had already sent her. He agreed to send it only if she were willing to accept it in exchange for her train fare home (to Washington, D.C.) for the Christmas holiday. Three months later Angelina tried again—for a new spring dress. This time, along with her father’s refusal and his suggestion that she do the best she could with what she had, Archibald added, “There is no better way to learn the great lesson of self help and self support than to learn how to make old things take the place of new and how to keep new things from getting old.” When Archibald refused to send extra money to his daughter, he usually cast his refusal in the context of not being “a rich man.” But his point was larger than that. In one instance Angelina had borrowed fifty cents from a schoolmate, which no doubt her father could have repaid. But instead he insisted that she learn to live within her means (she had a quite liberal allowance of fifty cents a week); that she experience the misery associated with indebtedness; and that whenever she got into debt, she “make it her first aim to get out.” Over and over, he advised her to “practice a wise economy.” After all, he noted, the judicious use of money was a virtue.¹²

Some parents, however, did readjust their expectations when their daughters appeared unable to live within previously agreed-upon budgets. When Miriam Matthews left home in the 1920S to attend the University of California at Berkeley, her parents at first made one bank deposit at the beginning of the school year for her expenses. But either they later became unable to make such sizable deposits or they found she could not budget the money properly. They subsequently made a smaller deposit at the beginning of each semester for her initial expenses and sent her a monthly allowance.¹³ Portia Washington Pittman was apparently never able to live as a student within her allowance, and her father was rarely able to hold to his position that she do so. Portia no doubt knew that with his well-known name she could sometimes sign for her purchases and have the merchant send him the bill. When she charged some of her expenses in this manner in the spring of 1904, Booker T. Washington paid the bill he received, but he chided Portia: “I very much prefer that you not make bills before consulting with either me or your mama.” And he added, “It is not a safe plan.” It is possible that Washington’s remark represented a subtle threat not to pay Portia’s unauthorized debts in the future, but more likely than not, Washington was alluding to his popularly known position that indebtedness was the first step back into slavery. After Portia moved to Germany in 1905 to study music with Martin Krause, she informed her father that she could live comfortably on seventy to eighty dollars a month. He sent seventy, but not to her. He sent the money to the Kolonial Wirtschaftliches Komitee, where she could withdraw it as she needed it. This way she would not have all the money at once, and maybe she would even be thoughtful about when to ask for it and how to spend it.¹⁴

For some children, thriftiness and even deprivation were regular conditions of life rather than character-development lessons in self-denial, delayed gratification, and self-control. Most parents encouraged fiscal conscientiousness simply because they could not afford to support the children more extensively than they already did. Having their children in boarding schools was often a financial burden to begin with, and the children had to do their part not to make it worse. Therefore Beulah Hester never expected money from home while she was a student at Hartshorn Memorial College in the early 1900s, and she did not ask for any. She never expected to go home for the Christmas holiday, either, and was grateful for the pair of shoes her parents sent each Christmas instead. The shoes, and the one new dress she received every spring, probably deprived her siblings at home of something. Mabel Northcross’s family was equally poor, but she was fortunate enough to live at home during her initial education, and when she studied nursing at Meharry Medical College in Nashville during the 191OS, the school provided uniforms, housing, and a small stipend after her probationary period. Her parents, however, sent her “a little change” from time to time, but more often they sent fresh vegetables from their home garden in nearby Paducah, Tennessee. Because she was an older student living in a situation that allowed (or required) her to prepare her own meals, the produce from home enabled Northcross to feed herself and, probably, fellow nursing students too.¹⁵

Lessons related to moderation, especially in personal consumption, were significant even when the family’s economic circumstances already preclude...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• Foreword, by Catharine R. Stimpson
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part 1 - What a Woman Ought to be
• Part 2 - What a Woman Ought to do
• Conclusion
• Appendix: Biographical Sketches
• Abbreviations And Sources
• Notes
• Index